User:Arodriguez860/Fossil Creek/Matthew Jez Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * A. Rodriguez
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Fossil Creek

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Your lead is very concise and sums up the findings within the site well. I would recommend reducing the detail given in regard to the location of the site, but there are a plenty of interesting details that demonstrate what will be represented within the article while also leaving room for more detail later on.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The segments content within the individual subsections are very well thought out. Everything is very detailed, but not so much so that the sections overstay their welcome. I would recommend going into greater detail in regard to the methods used for discovering and extracting the flora and fauna found within the site. Overall, the layout is well thought out and contain the right amount of detail.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintains a consistently neutral tone and does not address the reader in any overt or subtle way. The tone remains based in facts and no viewpoints are over represented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links that I had checked are all from reliable sources and all functioned when clicked on.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There are little to no grammatical errors within the article, adding to its credibility. The organization is largely very well thought out as mentioned before, however the placement of the recreation section at the end seems like it may be better suited to an earlier subsection due to its shorter length. Overall, the content is clear, concise and well thought out.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The images used were selected in accordance to Wikipedia's copyright guidelines as far as I can tell. They are all captioned with a good amount of context and are well placed.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
The article does include references to a few other secondary sources. While there are a few external articles linked, adding more would be extremely helpful to the article's discoverability. Overall, however, the article is well supported.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is well written, well thought out and well formatted. While it may be helpful to adjust a few details such as the placement and size of the final section or the lack of external links, the overall format of the article makes it appealing to read, informative and detailed.